This is sort of a side point to the argument in the thread right now, but Micaela was not entirely under the radar. She was the Oregonian's state player of the year last fall, I believe. She lacked the resume of national camps, etc. of many of her peers, but that only underscores the imperfections of the evaluation system for those selections.

NWsocr: I assume that if Capelle invited an offer from the Pilots, it might affect your opinion of whether such an offer would then have been appropriate, even if she was unofficially orally committed to the Ducks? Would Garrett have been wrong to ignore the interests of the program and ignore Capelle's expression of interest under that scenario? Capelle and other D1 prospects are not mere commodities: their opinions and desires count for something.

I assume that the Pilot coaching staff does not exist on a moral plane higher than everyone else, but before we join a mob to lynch the Portland staff, before we suggest that there was any misconduct, I would think that more needs to be known about Capelle's recruiting.

Two years ago a player with National team experience, Liz Lisonbee, decommitted from the Pilots in favor of BYU. Not a word condeming BYU was written here, as far as I know, nor, to my knowledge, was there cause to complain.

I am not sure what to make of your premise that it is inappropriate to recruit a player who has previuosly committed elsewhere and, the additional point, that the ban on recruiting such a player is particularly important in soccer, compared to football, because there are fewer scholarships to offer.

This sort of thing is endemic in basketball, which has fewer scholarships than soccer. What is also endemic is that the have nots complain about the haves . . .perhaps like your complaint.

nwscr: I really donít believe that there were ANY ethics violations involving Miss Capelle and UP or, for that matter UofO.As for UofO, if I may be Blount, they are not known for their ethics in the sporting world. There also still seems to be a burning Embrey of misdeeds in a recent Simms episode. So if I might LaMichael, I mean lament, about what was said about the prophet Jeremiah (Masoli) in Chapter 43, Verses 1-3ÖĒyou are lying!Ē

In addition to their having been no grousing here when Lisonbee decommitted and went for BYU, there also was no grousing when Charney decided to transfer to UCLA. In fact, there was nothing but good wishes to Charney. Surely, she saw that she wasn't going to have a starting role and contacted UCLA to see what the opportunities would be there. Nwscr, do you think it was unethical for UCLA to say they probably had a starting spot for her?

Also, no one groused when Lauren Hansen opted to move to Oregon, notwithstanding that it dealt a serious, if temporary, blow to the Pilots' recruiting as she was the point person on recruiting. Certainly, before she left, she had discussions with Tara Erickson about working at Oregon. Nwscr, was that "unethical" by your standards? If Tara approached Lauren before Lauren came calling, would that have been "unethical" from your view?

Where the real ethical issue is, is in the idea coaches have that they should be able to get high school players to give oral commitments in their junior years (or sooner?) and then rely on them, and they should be able to establish among themselves a so called "ethical" culture to try to effectively lock those players into the oral commitments, in violation of the spirit of the NCAA rules.

Capelle is a good player, but there is something to be said for playing with and against the best in the game. I doubt anyone would deny that UP is a better training ground for soccer players than UO, especially if they want to keep playing soccer after college. I firmly believe players have every right to go to whatever program is the best fit for them and it's the coaches job to create the best team that they can. No money was exchanged, so why would someone (NW Socr) claim that this was an "ethical" problem?

Besides, UO has already proven they are willing to spend as much money as possible on facilities to lure players, so they really don't have room to cry when they get passed over for a better program.

Last edited by fwill on Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:02 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : spelling)

I never said that I was a Duck fan in any way and I am certainly not a Duck football fan so I totally agree with all of that about the football team. Comparing football player off field actions and recruiting practices of coaches. Not sure I see the correlation. Nice play on the names though.

I will try to answer the questions, although I think for the most part they have been answered. Micaela was not an "un-noticed" player by UP, she was coached by Lauren and Garrett. I totally understand that most FC Portland players grow up wanting to pay for UP, but Micaela was never recruited by UP until the week before signing when they freed up money and spot apparently from Charney leaving (Charney could not have spoken to UCLA or vice versa unless she had a release from UP, NCAA rule) and presto she is a Pilot. I am sure in response to many posts that I read on this forum about how she ate up some of the UP commits. I understand the history here and I actually think you and I are in agreement on the gray area of verbal commits but this is how the system currently works and in most cases smoothly.

To compare the movement of D1 athletes in other sports before signing and the movement of women's soccer players is not comparable. Other sports especially the large men's sports do not typically get verbal commits as early as soccer, although it does happen. The main difference is that in those sports it is common for other coaches to continue to recruit those players right up until signing day. This is frowned upon in soccer although not illegal. Maybe there should be two signing periods like basketball. Having several friends in D1 coaching I think that there the "ethical" culture that UPSF speaks about does exist, and with my knowledge of how this particular case transpired I think that "ethical" culture was violated in this case.

Coaches move between schools frequently it is in no way the same thing. They move for a variety of reasons. UP should be flattered that another school, any school would want to hire one of their asst coaches. It would be great if someone on this thread knew Lauren Hanson and could ask her some of these questions. That would be fantastic.

What would you all say if other schools in direct competition for UP recruits, like the Stanford's, UCLA's, and UNC's of college soccer continued to recruit UP verbal commits right up to signing day? They would not lose many but some would go to other schools for whatever reason. This does not happen very often in the current system.

Again, I am not just talking about UO. That is just the school involved on this occasion. What if it was a bay area kid committed to UP and the same thing happened and she went to Stanford the week before signing? This forum would light up like a Christmas tree! Kind of funny, Stanford, tree.

NWsocr wrote:Again, I am not just talking about UO. That is just the school involved on this occasion. What if it was a bay area kid committed to UP and the same thing happened and she went to Stanford the week before signing? This forum would light up like a Christmas tree! Kind of funny, Stanford, tree.

My memory is that in the 90's, Lorrie Fair had verbally committed to UP, and then changed her mind and went with UNC. The UP coaching staff was not happy about it, but I don't remember it being seen as an ethical issue.

One fact that I understand that hasn't been mentioned is that Capelle hadn't developed the work ethic until late in her high school years. Fueled by the passion, she became a better player and thus a more valuable commodity and late bloomer. With that in mind, she wanted to match her new found abilities with a great program.

A commitment from a college coach is very, very rarely taken back but a verbal commitment from a player changing teams does happen. Just refer to the college recruiting site and you will see every so often "Changed Verbal Commitment from ... to ...". There is a lot of time between giving a "verbal" in Sept going in to your junior year and showing up on campus as a freshman!

NWsocr wrote:Again, I am not just talking about UO. That is just the school involved on this occasion. What if it was a bay area kid committed to UP and the same thing happened and she went to Stanford the week before signing? This forum would light up like a Christmas tree! Kind of funny, Stanford, tree.

whether you like it or not, kids change their minds. Lisonbee did it a year before signing and went to BYU, Capelle did it late and came to UP . Capelle has indeed been interviewed on the subject and said UP was her dream school from the start and that her fondest youth moment was watching UP beat UCLA in the National Championship game. (mine too!) She said going anywhere but UP would have been a disapointment. She changed to UP when her HS coach told her that if she wanted to go to UP she should pursue her dream and that she was good enough to go there.

You have no evidence of any impropriety. if you did, i assume you would produce it. so far, you have produced nothing.

One fact that I understand that hasn't been mentioned is that Capelle hadn't developed the work ethic until late in her high school years. Fueled by the passion, she became a better player and thus a more valuable commodity and late bloomer. With that in mind, she wanted to match her new found abilities with a great program.

A commitment from a college coach is very, very rarely taken back but a verbal commitment from a player changing teams does happen. Just refer to the college recruiting site and you will see every so often "Changed Verbal Commitment from ... to ...". There is a lot of time between giving a "verbal" in Sept going in to your junior year and showing up on campus as a freshman!

Sorry eProf, not the same thing. In the 90's recruits did not commit as early as they do now. They took official visits as senior's in HS. So she probably visited UP, got an offer and committed. Then took a visit to UNC, got an offer, and then committed there. Not the same thing.

Nwscr: Your facts are wrong about Charney. She was given permission to talk to other schools at the end of her senior year NOT just before Micaela was talked to. As far as the punny dialogue...it had nothing to do with Duck football...the SUBJECT was school ethics, the names just happened to be part of a UofO program.Lauren Hanson is known by people on this forum, but she, like most coaches, aren't involved in our kind of discussions for the "out of context" situations that arrive from such participation.

This kind of stuff happens. Sometimes it's because a coach "poaches" a player, but often it's because we are dealing with teenagers and teenagers sometimes change their minds.

Garrett Smith has been coaching at The Bluff for, what, 20 years now? Over that time the program has been incredibly clean from an NCAA perspective and has been marvelously successful on the pitch, in the classroom, and in the community. So forgive me if I am opting to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one that he did not act out of line or break the coaching "honor code" about not recruiting players who have given verbal commitments. If it were to become a pattern here, yes, it would be concerning. But as a one-time scenerio... it's no more troubling to me than a player transferring in from a different program. Sometimes players change their mind about what's the best situation for them.

I mean... Capelle was, what, 16 when she committed to Oregon? (Side note: growing up in the Portland area, I'm sure she grew up idolizing the UP program and always imagined herself wearing Pilot purple.) According to you, UP didn't recruit her until last spring/summer when she "suddenly" signed. Sounds to me like UP respected her verbal commitment by not contacting her. So what if it were she that contacted the UP coaches when she played here and asked if they would be interested? Then it doesn't seem so nefarious, does it? Or perhaps someone from UP's staff went to her high school or club coach and said: "Hey, she's verballed to Oregon and we want to respect that and not talk to her directly. But if you think she might be interested in an opportunity to play at Portland, have her contact us." Is that really so terrible? I don't think so, especially since - out of respect for her verbal to Oregon - they never had an opportunity to talk to her as she was developing into a tremendous player.

Anyway, my memory is hazy on this and I couldn't find the right thread here on the forum, but didn't she sign with UP this Spring, after LOI day in February? So she had an opportunity to sign her LOI with Oregon but didn't... perhaps to keep her options open when it came to UP? Sorry, but I'm just not buying the argument that the UP coaching staff did anything even remotely unethical in this whole process.

How about we recognize that Capelle made her decision based on her desire to play top quality soccer at a top quality soccer program and as a freshman she is gaining the national recognition that she has earned? And let's also face the fact that had she gone to any other PNW school, she would not be getting national recognition at this point in her very young college career. She made the right choice for her and none of us - not even NW Socr - has the right to question her decision.

Ha ha... yes, though I will say that generally speaking I think NWsocr's overall point that it's problematic to have coaches continue recruiting a player once that player verbals. I don't agree that anything unseemly happened in this particular instance (as I illustrated in my previous post), but on the whole I think it's not the greatest scenerio in the world to have a handful of "power" teams swooping in and snatching up other schools' verbals on a regular basis.

However, this also brings up the problems that arise with players undergoing so much pressure to verbal so early. If a player is either a "late bloomer" or an "early bloomer" (i.e. showing great promise at 15 or 16 but then never really developing beyond that), does it really make sense to have a system in which players verbal so early and then other schools "cannot" ("aren't supposed to" is more accurate) contact them as their true skill-level becomes more evident?

purple passion wrote: BTW, Micaela's decision was LEAST based on anything said or done by coaches from UP or from UofO. That's all I can say about it. I think this horse is dead...no more oats will help.

There aren't nearly enough opportunities to use this emoticon!

Last edited by fwill on Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:12 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : grammar)

I have read all the arguments and rationalizations above but bottom line, in womenís soccer today, itís bad form for a player to go back on a verbal commitment only a few weeks before she signs a letter of intent with the school she committed to. It leaves that school scrambling to find a replacement and puts that school in a very real predicament.

And it shows bad form for another school to then sign that player under those circumstances. It does and should tarnish that schoolís reputation.

color me purple wrote:I have read all the arguments and rationalizations above but bottom line, in womenís soccer today, itís bad form for a player to go back on a verbal commitment only a few weeks before she signs a letter of intent with the school she committed to. It leaves that school scrambling to find a replacement and puts that school in a very real predicament.

And it shows bad form for another school to then sign that player under those circumstances. It does and should tarnish that schoolís reputation.

Itís simply not the right way to do things nor treat other people.

Obviously, in a perfect world everyone would make the perfect decision every time. But, alas, the world is not perfect. Far better to get it sorted out several months before school starts than dealing with a transfer or regret or whatever else. If you are a college coach and you expect no student-athlete to ever change their mind or no fellow coach to ever get competitive when it comes to recruiting, you're in the wrong business.

I've already said what I think on this, so I won't rehash it.

Most importantly, if Michelle is happy (she's an all-American candidate as a freshman and playing for her dream school that is undefeated and ranked third in the country, so I would assume she is), that's all that matters. I think this board had a very positive reaction to the news that Charney was transferring to UCLA. Some were disappointed, sure, but I think everyone wished her well and understood that if Charney wasn't happy at UP, she's much better off going to a place that suits her better. We were the beneficiaries of this when Kelsey came here... we lost out when Charney left. Similarly, we were the beneficiaries when Michelle backed out on her verbal, we lost out when Lindsi Lisonbee did it to us.

This is college athletics... let's try to keep the student-athlete - you know, the ones who are busting their butts on the field and in the classroom for our entertainment - and their happiness at the forefront.

color me purple wrote:I have read all the arguments and rationalizations above but bottom line, in womenís soccer today, itís bad form for a player to go back on a verbal commitment only a few weeks before she signs a letter of intent with the school she committed to. It leaves that school scrambling to find a replacement and puts that school in a very real predicament.

And it shows bad form for another school to then sign that player under those circumstances. It does and should tarnish that schoolís reputation.

Itís simply not the right way to do things nor treat other people.

I understand the general point of this, and I can see the argument for it. It does leave the "losing" school in a predicament. But, I don't agree.

The NCAA adopted its rules on this, including setting the NLI date, after a lot of consideration, taking into account first what is best for the student athletes. The rule is clear that oral commitments are statements of current intent and only that; and that student athletes have an absolute right not to honor them, period. I coach high school athletes, and I know how they agonize over where to go to school often until very late in the game, and I also know how much they can be influenced -- to their detriment -- over the possible glory of "committing" to a school early. This is a difficult and complex situation for everyone, but in my mind the student athlete comes first and always should make the decision, when D-Day arrives, that she thinks is best for herself. In making her decision, she well may and perhaps should consider the implications for the school that is losing her, but if, in weighing all the considerations, she decides for a different school, then that is what she should do, and she should not have to put up with grief from anyone about it. Nor should the school she decides on have to put up with grief for accepting her. I think arguments to the contrary show how much college athletics has warped what educational institutions are supposed to be all about.